In Russia everyone carries a Passport as their ID. You can be walking down the street in the middle of the day, or siting on a bench eating your lunch, and if a cop ask your for your ID, you have to show him your Passport. That goes for anyone who is not even a Russian citizen.

Its been this way for ever.

Do Canadian citizens already have ID cards? If they do, it didnt make their life any more difficult.

Are there any rational humans who spend time finding, and then reading websites like this? Articles with no attribution, no particular allegiance to inconvenient items like facts. Dudes, it's some guy in his mom's basement who wants to sell you some gold coins. I shed a few billion brain cells just hitting the link.

Are there any rational humans who spend time finding, and then reading websites like this? Articles with no attribution, no particular allegiance to inconvenient items like facts. Dudes, it's some guy in his mom's basement who wants to sell you some gold coins. I shed a few billion brain cells just hitting the link.

I know little about the Real ID. What is it you know about this dude in his mom's basement? Do you have some facts?

Anyway, despite the guy being in his mom's basement selling all his gold coins, I know that the state where I reside just implemented a new id, and we were one of the states that opposed the Real ID. I don't know if it is Real ID compliant. I don't know if it has an RFID microchip. My greatest objection would be if it had RFID. I would be concerned that my ID could be checked without my knowledge just by walking past some hidden ID sensor. Maybe it would even be able to detect my ID when driving by.

It's just about time to dawn a tinfoil hat, guys. Maybe wrap the ID in tinfoil until you need to use it?

Where the technology exists for the governement to intrude, they will. If using RFID enables tracking technology, all they need is for the people to accept the chips. I don't think the government cares whether law were to tell them how restricted the access is to be for reading the RFID. They would push it to the technological limit. Whatever information they gain illegally might be inadmissable in court, but that would not stop them from gathering and using the data. It would be as if we all had ankle bracelets.

Are there any rational humans who spend time finding, and then reading websites like this? Articles with no attribution,

"I am the author of all of the articles on this site."

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldArmy

no particular allegiance to inconvenient items like facts. Dudes, it's some guy in his mom's basement who wants to sell you some gold coins.

"My name is Michael and I am a 41 year old American man who is married to one of the most wonderful women in the world. I have an undergraduate degree in Commerce from the University of Virginia and I have a law degree from the University of Florida law school. I also have an LLM from the University of Florida law school. I worked for some of the largest law firms in Washington D.C., but now I mostly focus on trying to make a difference in the world."

So if you have done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide, this doesnt really change anything.

If you have nothing to hide, why not have a microchip embeded in your hand or forehead? How about giving the cops the key to your house, car, and safe deposit box? Will you let the government manage all your internet and ATM passwords? Give them computer access to your car to verify you have not exceeded the speed limit?

You have nothing to hide, so you would give it all up to them? Mighty trusting, are you?

If you have nothing to hide, why not have a microchip embeded in your hand or forehead? How about giving the cops the key to your house, car, and safe deposit box? Will you let the government manage all your internet and ATM passwords? Give them computer access to your car to verify you have not exceeded the speed limit?

You have nothing to hide, so you would give it all up to them? Mighty trusting, are you?

That is very different from just having an extra piece of ID that allows you into federal buildings and travel. This card becomes your drivers license so really whats the difference?

"My name is Michael and I am a 41 year old American man who is married to one of the most wonderful women in the world. I have an undergraduate degree in Commerce from the University of Virginia and I have a law degree from the University of Florida law school. I also have an LLM from the University of Florida law school. I worked for some of the largest law firms in Washington D.C., but now I mostly focus on trying to make a difference in the world."

Saw it on the internet, it must be true, eh? What's his name? Where does he work? Address, phone number? Journalistic training or certification? Background check on his claims? Or is it just that you like what he's saying so you don't challenge it?

Here's an easy one, do a quick check of undergraduate degrees awarded by the University of Virginia.

My point is to illustrate that not every website on the internet is valid, not every anonymous poster is what they claim and that developing a questioning and discerning approach to life is of value.

This is an anti-illegal immigrant and anti-terrorism measure, for better or worse.

How much of your personal rights are you willing to give up to stop illegal immigrants working under stolen or forged state ID cards? How much of your personal rights are you willing to give up to fight terrorism?

Under Bush, the line that Bush supporters said over and over was that "they had nothing to hide", so Bush could do whatever Bush wanted to stop terrorism. Were those folks wrong back then when they said they had nothing to hide, or wrong now when all the sudden they have something to hide?

I tend to ignore people who are so fickle about their Constitutional Rights that they decide when to abandon them or not based upon which political party tells them to abandon them.

Saw it on the internet, it must be true, eh? What's his name? Where does he work? Address, phone number? Journalistic training or certification? Background check on his claims? Or is it just that you like what he's saying so you don't challenge it?

Here's an easy one, do a quick check of undergraduate degrees awarded by the University of Virginia.

My point is to illustrate that not every website on the internet is valid, not every anonymous poster is what they claim and that developing a questioning and discerning approach to life is of value.

I would agree with you. Having said that, the website that was referenced by the OP is not the only source of information. There are plenty of sites that have some info. Why would one research the background of one individual if there are other sources with corroborating information?

There is nothing wrong with skepticism. I am a skeptic of much stuff on the internet. I am also a skeptic of what is said on the television media, the print media, radio, and word of mouth. I am a skeptic of what the government tells us through those sources and through their documents. It's fair to say that I am an all-around skeptic. It's just that the government and the television media have the greatest amount of power. Therefore it seems reasonable for them to have to endure the greatest amount of scrutiny.

What I had pointed out in your post was that you had ridiculed the OP, yet your post itself was indicative of your lack of background checking. If you want to dig into the background of the writer in the originally referenced website, then do so. To waive off that source with what appears to be totally bogus information is demonstrating some form of hypocrisy on your part.

Under Bush, the line that Bush supporters said over and over was that "they had nothing to hide", so Bush could do whatever Bush wanted to stop terrorism. Were those folks wrong back then when they said they had nothing to hide, or wrong now when all the sudden they have something to hide?

Be specific. What Bush supporters said over and over...?

Even for those who would have said "they had nothing to hide" is there room in your world for people to change their viewpoint?

I would agree with you. Having said that, the website that was referenced by the OP is not the only source of information. There are plenty of sites that have some info. Why would one research the background of one individual if there are other sources with corroborating information?

There is nothing wrong with skepticism. I am a skeptic of much stuff on the internet. I am also a skeptic of what is said on the television media, the print media, radio, and word of mouth. I am a skeptic of what the government tells us through those sources and through their documents. It's fair to say that I am an all-around skeptic. It's just that the government and the television media have the greatest amount of power. Therefore it seems reasonable for them to have to endure the greatest amount of scrutiny.

What I had pointed out in your post was that you had ridiculed the OP, yet your post itself was indicative of your lack of background checking. If you want to dig into the background of the writer in the originally referenced website, then do so. To waive off that source with what appears to be totally bogus information is demonstrating some form of hypocrisy on your part.

Yes, I am ridiculing anyone who uses such low-rent sources to substantiate a point. I am also ridiculing anyone who fails to make even the most rudimentary effort to confirm their sources. It's a comfortable but undisciplined approach to life and is simply ignorant. As to you, your contorted logic and persistent straying from the point at hand is painful, especially as it appears you agree the site lacks credibility so whatever point you made is evident only to you.

Yes, I am ridiculing anyone who uses such low-rent sources to substantiate a point. I am also ridiculing anyone who fails to make even the most rudimentary effort to confirm their sources. It's a comfortable but undisciplined approach to life and is simply ignorant. As to you, your contorted logic and persistent straying from the point at hand is painful, especially as it appears you agree the site lacks credibility so whatever point you made is evident only to you.

I don't agree that the site lacks credibility. I would agree that I had not researched the site. Nor had you. Perhaps the OP had not either. It doesn't matter.

There is a lot of information out there on the Real ID. There is discussion that can be had about it. If everyone had to research everything before discussion begins, as you appear to be saying, then there would be a lot of silence. People would not be aware that there are questions. Nothing would ever get discussed until discussion is futile, like after the gulags had already been filled and emptied.

Are you conceding that your characterization of the person behind the story was wrong? Do you have any reason to dispute his bio as reported on his website? What do you know about the Real ID? What are your high-rent sources? MSNBC?